CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Heathermount Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home used effective infection prevention measures, PPE, testing, hygiene practices and social distancing arrangements.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, July 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control, safe staffing arrangements and support for family visits.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 25 February 2021. It focused on how the home was preventing and managing infection during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors were assured that infection controls were in place. They found effective use of personal protective equipment, regular testing, suitable hygiene measures and up-to-date infection control guidance.
The home was clean and well maintained. Staffing was carefully organised, with consistent staff allocated to specific floors to reduce contact between different parts of the home.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the report gives findings about infection prevention and control, but does not give an overall quality rating or a separate rating for each care question.
Infection control
Inspectors found effective infection prevention and control procedures. The environment was clean, hygienic and well maintained.
“The registered manager ensured there were effective infection prevention and control (IPC) procedures in place to prevent the transmission of infection; the environment was clean, hygienic and well-maintained.” from the report
PPE and testing
Staff had the PPE they needed, stock was managed well and regular testing was in place for residents and staff.
“The staff were provided with the necessary personal protective equipment (PPE), PPE stock levels were well managed, and staff were observed wearing the appropriate PPE during the inspection.” from the report
Staff deployment
Staffing levels were managed carefully. Consistent staff were allocated to particular floors to reduce movement around the home.
“Consistent staff were allocated to specific floors meaning there was less cross over of staff across the home.” from the report
Family contact
Relatives were helped to keep in regular contact through video calls and a room arranged for socially distanced visits.
“Relatives were supported to maintain regular contact with people who lived at the home.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection prevention and control arrangements are in place now?
- 02Are regular tests still provided for residents and staff, and how are higher-risk people supported?
- 03How are staff deployed across the home now, and is movement between floors limited?
- 04How can relatives visit or keep in contact with residents now?
- 05What are the home's current overall and individual CQC ratings?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated and the other care questions were not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 July 2021 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, October 2019
Heathermount Residential Home was rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with some consent records needing clearer detail.
This was an unannounced, planned inspection on 1 October 2019. One inspector spoke with people, staff and managers, observed care, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe, were treated with kindness and had choice about their care, food and activities.
Inspectors found flexible care that reflected people's needs and interests. They also praised end of life care, staff training, medicines arrangements, cleanliness and the way feedback was used to make changes.
Personalised care
Care was adapted to people's individual preferences and changing needs. Inspectors saw creative ways of helping people retain interests and happy memories.
“The service was creative and innovative in supporting people to live well.” from the report
End of life support
Staff had relevant training and supported both people and their relatives with compassion. People's lives were remembered after they died.
“People were supported at the end of their lives by staff who had received relevant training in end of life care.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People said they were treated well, with their privacy and dignity respected. Staff spoke about people with warmth and compassion.
“People told us they were well supported and treated with kindness and respect.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Recruitment checks had been completed, staffing levels met people's needs, and medicines were handled by trained staff with competency checks.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet people's needs in a timely way.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingSome forms did not clearly show which decision a person's capacity was being assessed for. After the inspection, the manager provided an updated tool to improve this.
“However, the assessment forms used, did not always clearly reflect the decision that needed to be made.” from the report
- 01How are the updated mental capacity assessment forms being used now?
- 02Can you show how you record the specific decision being assessed when someone may lack capacity?
- 03Has the planned new call system been installed, including call bells and possible motion sensors?
- 04How do you check that medicines records, including as-needed medicines, remain complete and accurate?
- 05How would you support my relative to continue their hobbies, religious beliefs and important relationships?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, and the previous overall rating was Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 October 2019 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Heathermount Residential Home
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- July 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Heathermount Residential Home →
- October 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Heathermount Residential Home →
- March 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 November 2010.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
40 live-in carers within about an hour of Wirral
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,230 a week. 37 can care for a couple. 8 years' experience on average.
“It was clear that she genuinely cared and her warm approach really helped put our minds at ease.”
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.